Following up on the idiotic "The Pill Kills" campaign, which (based on the ravings of a lunatic anti-choice pharmacist) claims that the pill is an abortifacient that "kills babies", I ran across another salient article published a couple of years ago. From the eminently more credible "New Scientist" ("The World's No.1 Science & Technology News Service"), the article posits that the rhythm method (aka "natural family planning" aka "No Sex Please, we're fetus fetishists") is actually responsible for killing far more embryos than contraception. No, really!?? Well, fuck yeah:"The range of birth control choices may have become narrower for couples that believe the sanctity of life begins when sperm meets egg. The rhythm method, a philosopher claims, may compromise millions of embryos.Well well well... uncomfortable? Inconvenient!? But then the truth usually is.“Even a policy of practising condom usage and having an abortion in case of failure would cause less embryonic deaths than the rhythm method,” writes Luc Bovens, of the London School of Economics, in the Journal of Medical Ethics." [...]
Now Bovens suggests that for those concerned about embryo loss, the rhythm method may be a bad idea. He argues that, because couples are having sex on the fringes of the fertile period, they are more likely to conceive embryos that are incapable of surviving.
As many as 50% of conceptions may not survive long enough even to disrupt menstruation, Bovens says. It is reasonable to assume then, he adds, that embryos created from sperm that has been sitting for days within the female's reproductive tract before ovulation may be disadvantaged. [..]
“If you’re concerned about embryonic death,” Bovens says, “you’ve got to be consistent here and give up the rhythm method.” (emphasis mine)
|